Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 7)
Discussion
Can I assume that the few who feel that no wrong doing was done here, as is their perogative, feel deeply disappointed in Boris' personal apology and the apology from Number 10 to the Queen? If they feel that nothing was wrong, surely these acts of contrition must mark Boris and co out as unsuitable for office, buckling in the face of public pressure when they clearly occupy the moral high ground?
Electro1980 said:
Garvin said:
I am thoroughly confused by some opinions on this thread.
There are those that demand that Boris be brought to justice for his misdemeanours, that he is not above the law and should be treated no differently than anyone else. Fair enough and I agree with that. Now the Met have stated that they are not into retrospective investigations on pandemic misdemeanours for the general public so the same should apply to Boris in that case should it not? Even if they do investigate and find transgressions what is the punishment - slap on the wrist and a fine so the same should apply to Boris should it not? I’m not aware that the police were enforcing job losses on those they ‘prosecuted’. Therefore the same should apply to Boris should it not?
However, at this point many of those self same people then want to deviate from Boris being treated the same and want him to lose his job over it. They then claim that, indeed, because of the job he does he is different and should be treated differently. Bit inconsistent isn’t it?
There are also those who vehemently disagree that a working meeting cannot have food and drink. This is complete rubbish and during my career I have held and attended many meetings with colleagues over lunch and dinner with wine. There is no law against it. This includes meetings with senior government representatives and civil service. It is in no way unusual. However, let’s go with this for the sake of argument, then all such gatherings are parties and poor old Keir Starmer is up to his neck in it. It matters not that the video evidence is not of sufficient length or quality for some it clearly shows him have a drink and people scoffing grub in the background. Is Starmer and Labour to be held to the same standards or is that somehow different?
We then have those who say it’s not about this, it’s about rule makers breaking the law and should be held to higher standards. OK, I get that but does that stand up in law?
We surely get to the nub of the matter that this isn’t really about breaking the law it’s about emotional responses. On this I agree, but once emotion comes into it then the consequences will be ill defined and everyone is entitled to their view, even O&T who, despite the emotional and subjective pile on against him, does make some valid points. I struggle amongst all those I know well to identify a single one who has met the laws and ‘rules’ in their entirety. They all made judgements about what was OK, some clearly minor and some not so much and they all made judgements that protecting the elderly and those in care homes were more important that meeting friends etc. In other words, let him without sin cast the first stone . . .
I also detect some Remainers who see this as nothing more than an opportunity to get Boris who delivered Brexit against their undemocratic wishes. These are very disingenuous people who can hardly hold Boris to account for his misdemeanours without be hypocritical in the extreme.
To me this is about a politician who has morally stepped well over the line and should be held to account by the public and his peers. Parliament, and Parliament alone should deal with this. People should rightly give their views to their MPs and those MPs should rock up to the HoC and take the necessary actions to ‘force’ the government and Conservatives to do the right thing. It is the court of (highly subjective) public opinion that will ultimately deliver an outcome. So for those who are frothing uncontrollably, cease blathering inconsistently on a car forum and get down to Westminster and protest vigorously but legally after writing to your MP in the strongest possible terms.
That’s some impressive mental gymnastics there. Make sure you don’t strain anything.There are those that demand that Boris be brought to justice for his misdemeanours, that he is not above the law and should be treated no differently than anyone else. Fair enough and I agree with that. Now the Met have stated that they are not into retrospective investigations on pandemic misdemeanours for the general public so the same should apply to Boris in that case should it not? Even if they do investigate and find transgressions what is the punishment - slap on the wrist and a fine so the same should apply to Boris should it not? I’m not aware that the police were enforcing job losses on those they ‘prosecuted’. Therefore the same should apply to Boris should it not?
However, at this point many of those self same people then want to deviate from Boris being treated the same and want him to lose his job over it. They then claim that, indeed, because of the job he does he is different and should be treated differently. Bit inconsistent isn’t it?
There are also those who vehemently disagree that a working meeting cannot have food and drink. This is complete rubbish and during my career I have held and attended many meetings with colleagues over lunch and dinner with wine. There is no law against it. This includes meetings with senior government representatives and civil service. It is in no way unusual. However, let’s go with this for the sake of argument, then all such gatherings are parties and poor old Keir Starmer is up to his neck in it. It matters not that the video evidence is not of sufficient length or quality for some it clearly shows him have a drink and people scoffing grub in the background. Is Starmer and Labour to be held to the same standards or is that somehow different?
We then have those who say it’s not about this, it’s about rule makers breaking the law and should be held to higher standards. OK, I get that but does that stand up in law?
We surely get to the nub of the matter that this isn’t really about breaking the law it’s about emotional responses. On this I agree, but once emotion comes into it then the consequences will be ill defined and everyone is entitled to their view, even O&T who, despite the emotional and subjective pile on against him, does make some valid points. I struggle amongst all those I know well to identify a single one who has met the laws and ‘rules’ in their entirety. They all made judgements about what was OK, some clearly minor and some not so much and they all made judgements that protecting the elderly and those in care homes were more important that meeting friends etc. In other words, let him without sin cast the first stone . . .
I also detect some Remainers who see this as nothing more than an opportunity to get Boris who delivered Brexit against their undemocratic wishes. These are very disingenuous people who can hardly hold Boris to account for his misdemeanours without be hypocritical in the extreme.
To me this is about a politician who has morally stepped well over the line and should be held to account by the public and his peers. Parliament, and Parliament alone should deal with this. People should rightly give their views to their MPs and those MPs should rock up to the HoC and take the necessary actions to ‘force’ the government and Conservatives to do the right thing. It is the court of (highly subjective) public opinion that will ultimately deliver an outcome. So for those who are frothing uncontrollably, cease blathering inconsistently on a car forum and get down to Westminster and protest vigorously but legally after writing to your MP in the strongest possible terms.
El stovey said:
Electro1980 said:
Garvin said:
I am thoroughly confused by some opinions on this thread.
There are those that demand that Boris be brought to justice for his misdemeanours, that he is not above the law and should be treated no differently than anyone else. Fair enough and I agree with that. Now the Met have stated that they are not into retrospective investigations on pandemic misdemeanours for the general public so the same should apply to Boris in that case should it not? Even if they do investigate and find transgressions what is the punishment - slap on the wrist and a fine so the same should apply to Boris should it not? I’m not aware that the police were enforcing job losses on those they ‘prosecuted’. Therefore the same should apply to Boris should it not?
However, at this point many of those self same people then want to deviate from Boris being treated the same and want him to lose his job over it. They then claim that, indeed, because of the job he does he is different and should be treated differently. Bit inconsistent isn’t it?
There are also those who vehemently disagree that a working meeting cannot have food and drink. This is complete rubbish and during my career I have held and attended many meetings with colleagues over lunch and dinner with wine. There is no law against it. This includes meetings with senior government representatives and civil service. It is in no way unusual. However, let’s go with this for the sake of argument, then all such gatherings are parties and poor old Keir Starmer is up to his neck in it. It matters not that the video evidence is not of sufficient length or quality for some it clearly shows him have a drink and people scoffing grub in the background. Is Starmer and Labour to be held to the same standards or is that somehow different?
We then have those who say it’s not about this, it’s about rule makers breaking the law and should be held to higher standards. OK, I get that but does that stand up in law?
We surely get to the nub of the matter that this isn’t really about breaking the law it’s about emotional responses. On this I agree, but once emotion comes into it then the consequences will be ill defined and everyone is entitled to their view, even O&T who, despite the emotional and subjective pile on against him, does make some valid points. I struggle amongst all those I know well to identify a single one who has met the laws and ‘rules’ in their entirety. They all made judgements about what was OK, some clearly minor and some not so much and they all made judgements that protecting the elderly and those in care homes were more important that meeting friends etc. In other words, let him without sin cast the first stone . . .
I also detect some Remainers who see this as nothing more than an opportunity to get Boris who delivered Brexit against their undemocratic wishes. These are very disingenuous people who can hardly hold Boris to account for his misdemeanours without be hypocritical in the extreme.
To me this is about a politician who has morally stepped well over the line and should be held to account by the public and his peers. Parliament, and Parliament alone should deal with this. People should rightly give their views to their MPs and those MPs should rock up to the HoC and take the necessary actions to ‘force’ the government and Conservatives to do the right thing. It is the court of (highly subjective) public opinion that will ultimately deliver an outcome. So for those who are frothing uncontrollably, cease blathering inconsistently on a car forum and get down to Westminster and protest vigorously but legally after writing to your MP in the strongest possible terms.
That’s some impressive mental gymnastics there. Make sure you don’t strain anything.There are those that demand that Boris be brought to justice for his misdemeanours, that he is not above the law and should be treated no differently than anyone else. Fair enough and I agree with that. Now the Met have stated that they are not into retrospective investigations on pandemic misdemeanours for the general public so the same should apply to Boris in that case should it not? Even if they do investigate and find transgressions what is the punishment - slap on the wrist and a fine so the same should apply to Boris should it not? I’m not aware that the police were enforcing job losses on those they ‘prosecuted’. Therefore the same should apply to Boris should it not?
However, at this point many of those self same people then want to deviate from Boris being treated the same and want him to lose his job over it. They then claim that, indeed, because of the job he does he is different and should be treated differently. Bit inconsistent isn’t it?
There are also those who vehemently disagree that a working meeting cannot have food and drink. This is complete rubbish and during my career I have held and attended many meetings with colleagues over lunch and dinner with wine. There is no law against it. This includes meetings with senior government representatives and civil service. It is in no way unusual. However, let’s go with this for the sake of argument, then all such gatherings are parties and poor old Keir Starmer is up to his neck in it. It matters not that the video evidence is not of sufficient length or quality for some it clearly shows him have a drink and people scoffing grub in the background. Is Starmer and Labour to be held to the same standards or is that somehow different?
We then have those who say it’s not about this, it’s about rule makers breaking the law and should be held to higher standards. OK, I get that but does that stand up in law?
We surely get to the nub of the matter that this isn’t really about breaking the law it’s about emotional responses. On this I agree, but once emotion comes into it then the consequences will be ill defined and everyone is entitled to their view, even O&T who, despite the emotional and subjective pile on against him, does make some valid points. I struggle amongst all those I know well to identify a single one who has met the laws and ‘rules’ in their entirety. They all made judgements about what was OK, some clearly minor and some not so much and they all made judgements that protecting the elderly and those in care homes were more important that meeting friends etc. In other words, let him without sin cast the first stone . . .
I also detect some Remainers who see this as nothing more than an opportunity to get Boris who delivered Brexit against their undemocratic wishes. These are very disingenuous people who can hardly hold Boris to account for his misdemeanours without be hypocritical in the extreme.
To me this is about a politician who has morally stepped well over the line and should be held to account by the public and his peers. Parliament, and Parliament alone should deal with this. People should rightly give their views to their MPs and those MPs should rock up to the HoC and take the necessary actions to ‘force’ the government and Conservatives to do the right thing. It is the court of (highly subjective) public opinion that will ultimately deliver an outcome. So for those who are frothing uncontrollably, cease blathering inconsistently on a car forum and get down to Westminster and protest vigorously but legally after writing to your MP in the strongest possible terms.
Would there be such vocal support for merely ‘a few bevvies after work’ had there been a Labour PM in charge?
I think not. (In fact this thread would be onto several more volumes by now)
El stovey said:
The only thing funnier than Boris facing the consequences of his actions is the frothy Boris fans getting all salty about it all.
There’s always the odd one but it’s more telling that most of his heavyweight support on here are staying quiet while his softer support seem now firmly against him. This place has never been representative, so it suggests wider opinion is firmly against him now.biggbn said:
Can I assume that the few who feel that no wrong doing was done here, as is their perogative, feel deeply disappointed in Boris' personal apology and the apology from Number 10 to the Queen? If they feel that nothing was wrong, surely these acts of contrition must mark Boris and co out as unsuitable for office, buckling in the face of public pressure when they clearly occupy the moral high ground?
Life's not that straightforward though, is it. Ask me 20yrs ago and I would say it damn well should be. But as time ticks on and your expectations of people at large get a reality check, and you appreciate the nuances of life more, you realise it rarely is.Are people saying he's done no wrong? Or that we need to be careful what we expect PMs to resign for?
You don't always have to be guilty of a heinous crime to apologise. But an apology was never what was being screamed for really.
It's a mess of his own(and his Mrs') making and he needs to be fronting up to it properly rather than hiding. He knows what Cummings has, so get it all out in the open, 100%. Lance it. And if what Cummings has is worse, then get your party sorting out a leader who can sort things and fall on your sword (taking your wallpaper and scabby furniture with you).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The fact that many people will act in what they perceive to be their own interests, based on what they perceive to be their own personal risks, is the reason why if you need them to act in the common interests of the whole community when it is against their actual or perceived self-interest you have to legislate. Those arguing that they didn't need to follow the rules and shouldn't have had to because they didn't see the benefit for them are making the case for enforcing them by law. Murph7355 said:
biggbn said:
Can I assume that the few who feel that no wrong doing was done here, as is their perogative, feel deeply disappointed in Boris' personal apology and the apology from Number 10 to the Queen? If they feel that nothing was wrong, surely these acts of contrition must mark Boris and co out as unsuitable for office, buckling in the face of public pressure when they clearly occupy the moral high ground?
Life's not that straightforward though, is it. Ask me 20yrs ago and I would say it damn well should be. But as time ticks on and your expectations of people at large get a reality check, and you appreciate the nuances of life more, you realise it rarely is.Are people saying he's done no wrong? Or that we need to be careful what we expect PMs to resign for?
You don't always have to be guilty of a heinous crime to apologise. But an apology was never what was being screamed for really.
It's a mess of his own(and his Mrs') making and he needs to be fronting up to it properly rather than hiding. He knows what Cummings has, so get it all out in the open, 100%. Lance it. And if what Cummings has is worse, then get your party sorting out a leader who can sort things and fall on your sword (taking your wallpaper and scabby furniture with you).
Edited by biggbn on Saturday 15th January 11:31
Despite having gone to ground it seems our esteemed and glorious leader is drawing up a list of those he intends to sacrifice in an increasingly desperate attempt to save his sorry arse.
He's called it "Operation Save Big Dog"
The arrogance and contempt continues unabated.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
https://www.google.com/search?q=operation+save+big...
He's called it "Operation Save Big Dog"
The arrogance and contempt continues unabated.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
https://www.google.com/search?q=operation+save+big...
glazbagun said:
We find someone who doesn't break the laws they themselves impose on the rest of us. Boris was happy to lock us in our homes, send businesses to the wall and seperate dying relatives, but that was just for us plebs.
The laws he introduced were extreme, unprecedented and affected every Briton from the Queen to council tennants and even the homeless. But they didn't apply to Boris.
f
k him & the entire cabinet that defended this. They are all corrupt brown-nosing spineless parasites and can find a job with Putin if that's their attitude to the rule of law.
I must confess this is pretty much how I feel. What im also worried about is how wide open the door is now for a Labour government.The laws he introduced were extreme, unprecedented and affected every Briton from the Queen to council tennants and even the homeless. But they didn't apply to Boris.
f
k him & the entire cabinet that defended this. They are all corrupt brown-nosing spineless parasites and can find a job with Putin if that's their attitude to the rule of law.abzmike said:
Cringe…. The name of the ‘operation’ should tell Tory backbenchers all they need to know.
BJ is Straight Outta Compton. Didn't you know ?I don't know about anybody else but I've been waiting with bated breath for BJ's book on Shakespeare for the last 2 years.
If he goes soon, well, every cloud and all that ...
Cryssys said:
Despite having gone to ground it seems our esteemed and glorious leader is drawing up a list of those he intends to sacrifice in an increasingly desperate attempt to save his sorry arse.
He's called it "Operation Save Big Dog"
The arrogance and contempt continues unabated.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
https://www.google.com/search?q=operation+save+big...
I think they are going to need a bigger fridge!He's called it "Operation Save Big Dog"
The arrogance and contempt continues unabated.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
https://www.google.com/search?q=operation+save+big...
He's a dead man walking. Only his most loyal, terminally dim supporters on here are still suckling at the man-teat of Boris.
Garvin said:
Electro1980 said:
That’s some impressive mental gymnastics there. Make sure you don’t strain anything.
That's some coherent thought out debate there . . . then again, perhaps not. You obviously don't bother to strain anything!Okkkkaaay.
Garvin said:
Electro1980 said:
That’s some impressive mental gymnastics there. Make sure you don’t strain anything.
That's some coherent thought out debate there . . . then again, perhaps not. You obviously don't bother to strain anything!Then the usuals have to pile in with the typical spiteful one liners.
To support another comment it does seem, at least on here, that there are very few vigorous Boris supporters, and even those less vigorous supporters, possibly not even supporters but attempting to look at things in context and proportion are quiet, whether that's withholding support or just wait and see I don't know.
Personally Boris was never my choice but having no say in it you go with what presented, like it or lump it. When the discussion was only about the May 2020 bit of a do, when clearly on the same day beaches were rammed, annual business dinners were going ahead, and folks were meeting up then anyone's personal view is coloured by their general position on things. Parties when the country was in mourning for Phil, night before his funeral, then clearly the No10 and part of the civil service moral compass is broken and an unacceptable line crossed. The line that says anyone setting or enforcing regulations, or in a position that they're expected to set an example should not cross it. HM The Queen absolutely gets it, various individuals in government, civil service, and the police too, sadly don't.
Yet this morning the BBC showed footage of several people in a red wall constituency who still showed strong support for Boris. BBC didn't quite pick the obvious bloke with three teeth who happened to be exiting 'Spoons at 10:30am thankfully. However as mentioned earlier the key for Tories is to understand why they are where they are with a big majority, why they're also in the position they are today and figure out a way forward. Junking Boris at this precise point may or may not be the right thing, there is an element that nothing would be sufficient.
TDK-C60 said:
Garvin said:
Electro1980 said:
That’s some impressive mental gymnastics there. Make sure you don’t strain anything.
That's some coherent thought out debate there . . . then again, perhaps not. You obviously don't bother to strain anything!Okkkkaaay.
Extraordinary that when Boris is getting found out to be utterly dishonest and incompetent, the PHs reactionaries are actually trying to use brexit as some kind of motivation for criticising him and criticising “undemocratic remainers”
Explains how they can still support Boris though. It’s like some kind of religious zealotry.
El stovey said:
TDK-C60 said:
Garvin said:
Electro1980 said:
That’s some impressive mental gymnastics there. Make sure you don’t strain anything.
That's some coherent thought out debate there . . . then again, perhaps not. You obviously don't bother to strain anything!Okkkkaaay.
Extraordinary that when Boris is getting found out to be utterly dishonest and incompetent, the PHs reactionaries are actually trying to use brexit as some kind of motivation for criticising him and criticising “undemocratic remainers”
Explains how they can still support Boris though. It’s like some kind of religious zealotry.
FiF said:
To support another comment it does seem, at least on here, that there are very few vigorous Boris supporters, and even those less vigorous supporters, possibly not even supporters but attempting to look at things in context and proportion are quiet, whether that's withholding support or just wait and see I don't know.
You “attempting to provide context” lot are the worst Spending years defending him whilst trying to make out you’re impartial and interested in proportion. Whilst trying to make little digs at us vocal critics of Boris from the sidelines.
At least us yay Boris/grrr Boris lot just come out with it rather than these wafer thin excuses and contortions to try and appear balanced.
I’m quite open that it think Boris has been a terrible leader and want him gone ASAP.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff